* Need discussion and decision on "what is allowed in common info center". Pros? Cons? Alternatives? See {{bug|369395}}.

* Need discussion and decision on "what is allowed in common info center". Pros? Cons? Alternatives? See {{bug|369395}}.

+

:: Concern expressed for "extra work" on webmasters part but we can leave to them to throttle that, but no objections to following the "if you run on Indigo, you can be in Indigo Help" (that is, not that confusing if then not in Indigo repo).''

−

* Thoughts on "Java Development Tools" category? See {{bug|369258}} [Immediate issue has been resolved, but, not many comments ... so, feel free to comment or open new bugs on "categories"].

+

* Thoughts on "Java Development Tools" category? See {{bug|369258}} [Immediate issue has been resolved, but, not many comments ... so, feel free to comment or open new bugs on "categories"].

+

:: ''No particular comment ... might want to change the current label of "Programming Languages" to "Programming Languages and Tools" or something ... but, the idea of having one category for all languages was thought good.''

''Clarification on 01/23/2012: the repositories produced and contributed (for Juno and subsequent releases) must use p2 publishers that use greedy='false' by default. See {{bug|247099}} and the [http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox/p2/Publisher p2 Publisher wiki] for some history and details on this issue of greedy vs. non-greedy requirements.''

''Clarification on 01/23/2012: the repositories produced and contributed (for Juno and subsequent releases) must use p2 publishers that use greedy='false' by default. See {{bug|247099}} and the [http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox/p2/Publisher p2 Publisher wiki] for some history and details on this issue of greedy vs. non-greedy requirements.''

+

:: ''It was affirmed this is important and ok to add to "must do" requirements. If, for some reason, a project can not, they can always file for an exception and we can assess impact then.''

:: ''Somme concern about "E" ... might be some merit to it, but should be reworded to emphasize "abnormally high" amount of CQs, not simply "number of".''

+

:: ''Suggested to mention LTS, as we do EPP.

+

:: ''Some tangential discussion to get more detailed about ... such as, are there ways still to simplify the process? Such as for "minor" updates to a package. Will continue at next meeting.''

+

:: ''Is was suggested a "flow chart" was needed (like the IP process?) but a) I think that was made in jest, and b) think it will be "next year" before we could formalize into a heuristic.''

+

:: ''Will discus more at March meeting, before considering the document "reviewed and approved" by Planning Council.''

+

:: ''No overall objection to having PC state priorities, but some concern that a lot depends on the context in which the priorities were needed or used. Perhaps add a note these are priorities for producing a timely, predictable release train for adopters, products, and projects, and not that related to "importance", which could depend on many other factors such as, innovation, demand, and others.''

* Still comfortable with "4.2 as primary"?

* Still comfortable with "4.2 as primary"?

* Anything else?

* Anything else?

+

: {{bug|361628}} Not known yet, but some solution is likely needed, and that might require a "mass change" to not "packing" (and not signing?) nested jars.

Note: "Inactive" refers to Strategic Members or PMCs we have not heard from for a while, and have been unable to convince to participate. Those members can become active again at any time. Contact David Williams if questions.

Plans

anything to look at? In particular, plans specifying "planned support for 3.8 workbench"?

Juno+1 Name

Kepler (EMO has vetted the name ... thanks Chris!)

Guess I should announce? Or do you want to Chris? On committers list?

Chris agreed to send announcement note to 'committers list'

Other Business

Need discussion and decision on "what is allowed in common info center". Pros? Cons? Alternatives? See bug 369395.

Concern expressed for "extra work" on webmasters part but we can leave to them to throttle that, but no objections to following the "if you run on Indigo, you can be in Indigo Help" (that is, not that confusing if then not in Indigo repo).

Thoughts on "Java Development Tools" category? See bug 369258 [Immediate issue has been resolved, but, not many comments ... so, feel free to comment or open new bugs on "categories"].

No particular comment ... might want to change the current label of "Programming Languages" to "Programming Languages and Tools" or something ... but, the idea of having one category for all languages was thought good.

Clarification on 01/23/2012: the repositories produced and contributed (for Juno and subsequent releases) must use p2 publishers that use greedy='false' by default. See bug 247099 and the p2 Publisher wiki for some history and details on this issue of greedy vs. non-greedy requirements.

It was affirmed this is important and ok to add to "must do" requirements. If, for some reason, a project can not, they can always file for an exception and we can assess impact then.

Project Priorities: Please review and be prepared to discuss this proposed "policy document" about project priorities.

Good discussion

Somme concern about "E" ... might be some merit to it, but should be reworded to emphasize "abnormally high" amount of CQs, not simply "number of".

Suggested to mention LTS, as we do EPP.

Some tangential discussion to get more detailed about ... such as, are there ways still to simplify the process? Such as for "minor" updates to a package. Will continue at next meeting.

Is was suggested a "flow chart" was needed (like the IP process?) but a) I think that was made in jest, and b) think it will be "next year" before we could formalize into a heuristic.

Will discus more at March meeting, before considering the document "reviewed and approved" by Planning Council.

No overall objection to having PC state priorities, but some concern that a lot depends on the context in which the priorities were needed or used. Perhaps add a note these are priorities for producing a timely, predictable release train for adopters, products, and projects, and not that related to "importance", which could depend on many other factors such as, innovation, demand, and others.

Still comfortable with "4.2 as primary"?

Anything else?

bug 361628 Not known yet, but some solution is likely needed, and that might require a "mass change" to not "packing" (and not signing?) nested jars.